ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2024
Comparisons of Fifth-, Sixth-, and Seventh-Generation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems.
Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- User experiences and perceptions on the use of digital health technologies in the management of type 2 diabetes: an integrative systematic review.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Acarbose or Canagliflozin vs. Placebo to Ameliorate Post-Bariatric Hypoglycaemia: The Clinical Outcomes of the HypoBar I Randomised Clinical Trial.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of continuous glucose monitoring outcomes and health care resource utilization in patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Updated Calibration Algorithm Improves Analytical Accuracy of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2026Article
- Glycemic Normalization Immediately Following Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy in Adolescents With Type 2 Diabetes From the STDiabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Accuracy and feasibility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in early postoperative intensive care after liver transplantation.Therapeutic advances in endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
- Consensus statement on standardizing CGM evaluation metrics in Latin America: an expert approach.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Article
- Differences between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Obesity Management: Medical, Social, and Public Health Perspectives.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2025Review
- Diving into Sweat: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions in Wearable Sweat Sensing.ACS nano · 2024Review
- Blood glucose monitoring devices for type 1 diabetes: a journey from the food and drug administration approval to market availability.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Review
- Care of Young Children With Diabetes in the Childcare and Community Setting: A Statement of the American Diabetes Association.Diabetes care · 2023Review
- Clinical Performance Evaluation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Reporting.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Testing the Real-World Accuracy of the Dexcom G6 Pro CGM During the Insulin-Only Bionic Pancreas Pivotal Trial.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2023Article
- Patent analysis of digital sensors for continuous glucose monitoring.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Usability and Teachability of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices in Older Adults and Diabetes Educators: Task Analysis and Ease-of-Use Survey.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBetween-system differences for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices have important clinical consequences. PURPOSE: Here we review attributes of Dexcom's fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-generation (G5, G6, and G7) CGM systems.
methodsAccuracy metrics were derived from preapproval trials of the three systems and compared after propensity score adjustments were used to balance baseline demographic characteristics. Metrics included mean absolute relative differences (MARD) between CGM and YSI values and the proportion of CGM values within 20% or 20 mg/dL of the YSI values ("%20/20"). Ease-of-use was evaluated by formal task analysis.
conclusionsAdjusted MARD and %20/20 agreement rates were 9.0%/93.1% (abdomen-placed G5), 9.9%/92.3% (abdomen-placed G6), 9.1%/93.2% (abdomen-placed G7), and 8.2%/95.3% (arm-placed G7). Task analysis favored G7 over earlier systems. Favorable clinical outcomes such as hemoglobin A1c reduction and hypoglycemia avoidance seen with G5 and G6 are anticipated with G7 use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.